Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-20384
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 9 October 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Abraham
Wayo
BY:
Michele COLUCCI, Italy
CLAIMANT:
Abraham Wayo, Ghana
RESPONDENT:
MOGHRIB ATHLETIC TETOUAN (MAT), Morocco
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-20384
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 18 September 2024, the Ghanian player Abraham Wayo (hereinafter: the Player or the
Claimant), and the Moroccan club Morgheb Athletic Tetouan (MAT) (hereinafter: the Club or
the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as
from 18 September 2024 until 30 June 2025.
2.
Pursuant to the Contract, the Club agreed to pay the Player a monthly gross salary of MAD
15,000 during the 2024/2025 season, with each instalment payable at the end of each
respective month.
3.
Additionally, the Contract provided for in-kind benefits to the Player, consisting of: (i) the
provision of a furnished apartment, or alternatively the payment of an amount equivalent
to the rent, for the entire duration of the contractual period; and (ii) one round-trip ticket
per season between Accra (Ghana) and Casablanca (Morocco).
4.
Furthermore, clause 4 of the Contract provided the Club with a unilateral extension option
for a further season, under the following terms:
« 4.1. Option Renouvellement unilatéral par le club :
Le club dispose d’une option unilatérale pour renouveler le contrat du joueur pour une saison
sportive supplémentaire, sous réserve des conditions suivantes :
4.2.
Durée du Renouvellement :
En cas de renouvellement, le contrat sera prolongé pour une nouvelle saison sportive,
débutant le 1er juillet 2025 et se terminant le 30 juin 2026, ou à la fin de la saison 2025-2026
du championnat marocain, selon la date la plus tardive.
4.3 Augmentation Salariale :
En cas de renouvellement, le joueur bénéficiera d’une augmentation salariale de 20% portant
son salaire mensuel de base de 15 000 MAD à 18 000 MAD pour la durée de la saison sportive
2025-2026.
4.4.
Condition d’exercice de l’option et date limite :
Le club doit exercer cette option de renouvellement au plus tard le 15/05/2025. La décision
de renouvellement devra être notifiée au joueur par écrit selon l’une des méthodes suivantes:
• Email envoyé à l’adresse électronique enregistrée dans le présent contrat ou Remise en main
propre avec accusé de réception, garantissant ainsi la réception formelle et claire de la
notification par le joueur.
4.5.
Reconnaissance par le joueur :
Le joueur reconnaît qu’il a pleinement pris connaissance de la clause de renouvellement
unilatéral et des conditions associées. Le joueur accepte volontairement que le club puisse
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-20384
activer cette option à sa seule discrétion, et qu’il ne pourra ni révoquer ni contester cette
décision une fois l’option exercée par le club.
Le joueur confirme avoir bien lu et compris les termes du contrat, y compris cette clause de
renouvellement unilatéral. Il renonce expressément à tout recours judiciaire ou autre
objection à l’activation de cette clause devant une juridiction ou toute autre autorité
compétente.»
Freely translated into English:
“4.1. Unilateral Renewal Option by the Club:
The Club holds a unilateral option to renew the Player’s contract for one additional sporting
season, subject to the following conditions:
4.2. Duration of Renewal:
In the event of renewal, the contract shall be extended for a new sporting season,
commencing on July 1, 2025, and ending on June 30, 2026, or at the conclusion of the 2025–
2026 Moroccan Championship season, whichever date is later.
4.3. Salary Increase:
In the event of renewal, the Player shall benefit from a salary increase of 20%, raising his
basic monthly salary from MAD 15,000 to MAD 18,000 for the duration of the 2025–2026
sporting season.
4.4. Conditions for Exercising the Option and Deadline:
The Club must exercise this renewal option no later than May 15, 2025. The decision to renew
must be notified to the Player in writing by one of the following methods:
• Email sent to the electronic address registered in this contract, or hand delivery with
acknowledgment of receipt, thereby ensuring formal and clear receipt of the notification by
the Player.
4.5. Player’s Acknowledgment:
The Player acknowledges that he has fully read and understood the unilateral renewal clause
and its associated conditions. The Player voluntarily accepts that the Club may activate this
option at its sole discretion and that he shall neither revoke nor contest this decision once the
option has been exercised by the Club.
The Player confirms having read and understood the terms of the contract, including this
unilateral renewal clause. He expressly waives any judicial remedy or other objection to the
activation of this clause before any court or competent authority.”
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-20384
5.
On 9 May 2025, the Club issued a letter to the Player, informing him of its decision to
exercise the unilateral option to extend the Contract for one additional sporting season
(i.e., 2025/2026), in accordance with clause 4.1 of the Contract.
6.
On 12 May 2025, the Player sent a letter to the Club objecting to the extension of the
Contract, arguing the that automatic extension cannot apply when there is a significant
change in his “professional environment”, such as the Club’s relegation.
7.
On the same day, the Club acknowledged receipt of the Player’s letter and referred to its
correspondence of 9 May 2025 in which it confirmed the exercise of the option to
unilaterally extend the Contract.
8.
On 15 May 2025, the Player issued a default notice (hereinafter: the Default Notice) to the
Club, maintaining that he did not wish for the Contract to be extended, and requesting that
the Club, “without delay”, provide him with: (i) a one-way return air ticket to his country of
residence before 30 June 2025; (ii) a signed clearance letter confirming that the Contract
would end on 30 June 2025, that no renewal has occurred, and that the Club did not oppose
his departure; (iii) a formal income certificate confirming full salary payment in cash and
the absence of any banking facility; and (iv) a signed declaration for customs and border
authorities confirming that cash payments constitute lawful contractual income and that
the Club accepted full responsibility for the payment method. Additionally, the Player
demanded immediate payment of his monthly salaries for May and June 2025 by no later
than 30 June 2025. The Player also highlighted that he was still on a tourist visa since his
arrival in Morocco on 19 September 2024 and accordingly requested the regularisation of
his immigration status.
9.
On 17 May 2025, the Club replied to Default Notice by dismissing the Player’s requests and
reiterating its position that the Contract had been lawfully extended. As to the Player’s visa,
the Club highlighted that it had been in touch with the authorities in order to rectify his
immigration status, and confirmed that it would provide him with a flight ticket at the end
of the season, for him to return to Ghana and obtain a new visa prior to his return for the
upcoming season. Lastly, as to the outstanding amounts, the Club argued that it had
complied with all its obligations by paying the Player in cash.
10. On 18 May 2025, the Player allegedly granted a final 48-hour deadline to the Club to remedy
the default.
11. By a letter dated 21 May 2025, the Club informed the Player that he had been absent from
training and that disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him.
12. On 22 May 2025, in response to the Club’s letter, the Player issued a termination notice
(hereinafter: the Termination Notice), whereby he, inter alia, communicated the termination
of the Contract invoking art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations), with effect as from 20 May 2025.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-20384
13. On 26 May 2025, the Player seemingly booked a flight ticket for 4 June 2025 to return to
Ghana, covering the relevant expenses by himself.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 17 August 2025, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Position of the Player
15. The Player argued that the Club had failed to comply with its contractual obligations under
the Contract by not paying him the following amounts: (i) MAD 30,000 as outstanding
salaries for May 2025 and June 2025; (ii) MAD 5,000 as rental allowance corresponding to
the period between March 2025 and May 2025; and (iii) MAD 600 as estimated utility bills
corresponding to the period between March 2025 and June 2025.
16. Furthermore, the Player argued that his tourist stay permit had not been converted into a
permanent visa, that he was still in the country unlawfully as a tourist. In this regard, the
Player contended that he was compelled to personally bear administrative expenses
related to his visa and work permit, as well as travel costs incurred for administrative
appointments and his return flight ticket to home, amounting to a total of MAD 7,838.
17. The Player argued that the unilateral extension clause in the Contract was invalid, as he
had expressly objected to its application following the Club’s relegation to a lower division.
He further asserted that the Club’s notification was issued only after his explicit objection
and that the clause imposed an excessive restriction on his freedom of movement without
adequate reciprocity or consent.
18. In this regard, the Player contended that the Club’s persistent failure to acknowledge his
intention not to extend the Contract, combined with the Club’s relegation to a lower
division, resulted in a unilateral and substantial alteration of the contractual terms, thereby
amounting to a breach of contract.
19. Consequently, in light of the Club’s alleged “repeated and serious breaches”, the Player
maintained that he lawfully terminated the Contract with just cause on 20 May 2025, relying
on art. 14 of the Regulations.
20. In light of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“In view of the foregoing facts, evidence, and applicable law, Abraham Wayo ("the Player")
respectfully requests the FIFA Football Tribunal to adjudicate and order the following relief:
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-20384
1.
Declare this claim admissible and affirm that the Player validly terminated his
employment contract with just cause pursuant to Article 14 of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP 2023), due to the Club’s persistent and
material breaches of contract, including non-payment of salaries, failure to pay
housing rent and utilities, administrative breaches regarding immigration status,
and an invalid unilateral contract renewal attempt.
2.
Order the Club to pay the Player:
a. Outstanding salaries for May and June 2025, totaling 30,000 MAD (15,000 MAD
per month), with interest at a rate of 5% per annum from the respective due
dates until full payment;
b. Reimbursement of unpaid housing rent for March, May 2025, totaling 5,000
MAD (2,500 MAD per month), with interest at 5% per annum from the
respective due dates until full settlement;
c. Reimbursement of unpaid electricity and utilities expenses estimated at 600
MAD, plus applicable interest;
d. Reimbursement of visa regularization expenses totaling 1,382 MAD;
e. Reimbursement of repatriation travel expenses, including a one-way flight
ticket and transportation costs totaling 6,456 MAD;
f. Compensation for additional damages related to reputational harm, loss of
future earnings, and legal costs, quantified at 50,000 MAD, to be adjusted and
awarded by the Tribunal in ‘accordance with FIFA regulations and CAS
jurisprudence.
3.
Order the Club to bear all procedural costs, fees, and expenses incurred by the Player
in pursuing this claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal.
4.
Grant any other relief that the Tribunal deems appropriate and just in the
circumstances.”
b. Position of the Club
21. In its reply dated 4 October 2025, the Club stressed the validity of the exercise of the
extension option under 4 of the Contract.
22. According to the Club, said provision allowed a contractual extension for one additional
season, namely from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026. This renewal was subject to specific
conditions: the Club had to exercise the option no later than 15 May 2025 and notify the
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-20384
Player either via the email address indicated in the Contract or by delivering a written notice
in person with acknowledgment of receipt. It concluded arguing that, by signing the
Contract, the Player expressly recognized and accepted the Club’s right to exercise this
unilateral renewal option under the stipulated conditions.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-20384
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
23. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 17 August 2025 and submitted for
decision on 9 October 2025. Taking into account the wording of arts. 31 and 34 of the
January 2025 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter:
the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
24. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations (July 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between an Ghanaian player and a Moroccan club.
25. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
26. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
27. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-20384
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
28. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that
this is a claim from a player against a club for breach of contract.
29. On one hand, the Player claimed that he terminated the Contract with just cause on 20 May
2025, arguing that (i) the Club had failed to pay him outstanding remuneration, (ii) his
tourist stay permit had not been converted into a permanent visa and he was still in the
country unlawfully as a tourist, and (iii) the Club had unlawfully considered the Contract to
be unilaterally extended.
30. Consequently, the Player claimed to be entitled to: (i) MAD 30,000 as outstanding salaries
for May 2025 and June 2025; (ii) MAD 5,000 as rental allowance corresponding to the period
between March 2025 and May 2025; (iii) MAD 600 as estimated utility bills corresponding
to the period between March 2025 and June 2025; (iv) MAD 7,838 as reimbursement of
administrative and travel expenses; as well as (v) MAD 50,000 as “moral damages”.
31. On the other hand, the Club did not dispute that the amounts claimed were outstanding.
Instead, it argued that the Contract had been validly renewed in line with its clause 4.
Notably, the Club did not lodge any counterclaim for breach of contract.
32. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his primary task was to assess the
circumstances of the premature termination of the Contract, as well as the consequences
arising therefrom. Additionally, it is for the Single Judge to determine whether the Player is
entitled to receive the amounts claimed.
a) Early termination of the Contract
33. Firstly, the Single Judge turned his attention to the fact that the Player terminated the
Contract unilaterally on 20 May 2025, arguing that (i) the Club had failed to pay him
outstanding remuneration, (ii) his tourist stay permit had not been converted into a
permanent visa and he was still in the country unlawfully as a tourist, and (iii) the Club had
unlawfully considered the Contract to be unilaterally extended.
34. In this connection, the Single Judge recalled that early termination of a contract is
permissible only in cases of a sufficiently serious or persistent breach, and generally as a
measure of ultima ratio, following reasonable attempts by the parties to remedy the alleged
breach.
35. In this regard, the Single Judge first noted that it remained undisputed that less than two
monthly salaries were outstanding at the time of termination; and, therefore, art. 14bis of
the Regulations did not apply. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the Player neither
alleged nor substantiated that the Club’s financial default rendered the continuation of the
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-20384
employment relationship impossible so as to justify termination pursuant to art. 14 of the
Regulations.
36. The Single Judge then emphasized that the Player failed to properly substantiate his
allegation regarding visa irregularities, as he did not provide conclusive evidence on his visa
entry status, or evidence of costs effectively incurred to rectify his immigration status (other
than travel expenses to allegedly attend appointments with authorities). Although the
Single Judge acknowledged that the Club, in its communications, appeared to concede that
the Player had not been granted an appropriate work visa, he nevertheless found that the
evidence presented by the Player was insufficient to justify the abrupt termination of the
Contract at that point in time.
37. Similarly, the Single Judge observed that the Player’s objection to the extension of the
Contract for an additional season – irrespective of the validity of the relevant contractual
clause – did not confer upon the Player any right to unilaterally terminate the Contract prior
to the expiration of its original term.
38. More importantly, the Single Judge outlined that the Player did not grant the Club a
reasonable opportunity to remedy any of the alleged breaches. In this sense, the deadlines
imposed were extremely short and the Contract was terminated within five days of the first
warning raised against the Club’s alleged conduct (cf., the Default Notice and the
Termination Notice).
39. In light of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the Player terminated the Contract
without just cause on 20 May 2025, as the threshold of ultima ratio was not met.
Consequently, the Single Judge determined that the Player is not entitled to any
compensation for breach of contract.
40. Likewise, the Single Judge outlined that, as the Club did not file a counterclaim against the
Player, the latter shall not be deemed liable for pay any compensation due to the early
termination of the Contract in the case at hand. For the same reason, the Single Judge
considered that the question of the validity of the option clause may remain open, as it is
ultimately immaterial to the outcome of the case.
b) Consequences
Although the Player was unable to establish that he terminated the Contract with just
cause, the Single Judge found that this did not preclude his entitlement to any remaining
outstanding financial obligations arising under the Contract, in line with the pacta sunt
servanda principle.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-20384
b.1.) Outstanding salaries
41. Regarding the amount claimed for the salary of May 2025 (MAD 15,000), the Single Judge
observed that this sum remained undisputed and that the Player unilaterally terminated
the Contract after the 15th day of the relevant month. Consequently, in line with the
established practice of the Football Tribunal, the Single Judge decided to award the Player
the full amount claimed.
42. In line with the Club’s request and consistent with the established practice of the Football
Tribunal, the Single Judge recalled that the amounts due shall accrue interest at a rate of
5% p.a., in principle, as from the day following each respective due date. Exceptionally,
since the outstanding salary pertains to the month in which the early termination occurred,
interest shall accrue from 21 May 2025.
43. Conversely, regarding the salary for June 2025, the Single Judge noted that this amount had
not yet fallen due at the time of the unilateral termination. Accordingly, such an amount
could only be awarded as part of the claim for compensation for breach of contract, which,
as established in the preceding section, was dismissed. Therefore, the Single Judge rejected
this part of the claim.
b.2.) Rental allowance
44. With respect to the amounts claimed as rental allowance, the Single Judge concluded that
the Player failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding his entitlement. In particular,
the Single Judge observed that the only evidence submitted was an untranslated bank
cheque allegedly related to a rental payment, which, in accordance with art. 13 para. 3 of
the Procedural Rules, must be disregarded.
45. Moreover, the Single Judge outlined that the Player did not provide any indication as to
which instalment of the rental agreement the cheque referred to, nor did he submit a copy
of a corresponding rental contract to substantiate the alleged costs incurred.
46. In the absence of any convincing evidence, the Single Judge decided to reject this claim
pursuant to art. 13 para. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
b.3.) Utility and visa expenses
47. As to the amounts claimed as utility expenses, the Single Judge observed that the Player
based his claim solely on an estimated figure rather than on documented evidence of
actual costs incurred. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject this claim due to the
Player’s failure to discharge the burden of proof required to establish entitlement to
reimbursement, namely proof of the underlying obligation and proof of payment
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-20384
48. Regarding the amounts claimed as reimbursement for “visa regularization expenses” and
“repatriation travel expenses”, the Single Judge observed that the Player substantiated his
claim only with evidence of two specific costs: (i) MAD 390 for travel to Casablanca
(Morocco), and (ii) MAD 5,486 for travel to Accra (Ghana). In addition, the Single Judge noted
that these reimbursement requests were not contested by the Club. Accordingly, the Single
Judge decided to award these sums to the Player as requested.
49. The Single Judge further decided to award interest on both amounts as from 21 May 2025.
b.4.) Compensation for additional damages
50. Lastly, the Single Judge recalled that the Player claimed MAD 50,000 “as compensation for
damages related to reputational harm, loss of future earnings, and legal costs”.
51. However, he decided to reject this claim, as he considered that there is neither a regulatory
nor a contractual basis to support such a request in the case at hand. Furthermore, the
Single Judge emphasised that the Player had neither substantiated nor quantified his
request.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
52. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
53. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
54. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification
of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
55. The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-20384
56. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
57. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
58. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
59. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-20384
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Abraham Wayo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, MAT (Moghrib Athletic Tetouan), must pay to the Claimant MAD 20,876
as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 May 2025 until the date of
effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-20384
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 16